The editorial standard for this open notebook: how a piece of Eternity II research goes from unpublished work to a published page. What kind of contribution it is, whether it publishes, at what tier, and where it lives. One shared standard, built to scale to many authors.
This page is the editorial standard behind everything in the lab. It exists so that a finding reaches a reader as an authored artifact, not a raw note, and so the same rules apply no matter who writes it.
The ground rule everything rests on:
Publishing happens by pull request. A researcher opens a PR that adds or promotes a page, and the review on that PR is where the decision to publish, and at what tier, is made. Nothing enters the public record without a PR, and the PR is where a second reader checks it against the standard below. This keeps review collegial rather than a heavyweight gate, and it scales to many authors.
Keeping these separate is the whole method. It is easy to blur "polished," "reproducible," and "reviewed" into one vague notion of "done." They are not the same thing.
Plus attribution: who did what.
Not every result is a solver, and the notebook stopped pretending otherwise. A page declares its contribution:
The load-bearing distinction is solver versus everything else. A meet-in-the- middle band solver that proves an endgame is optimal is an analysis, not a solver, and it does not belong on a score chart even though it emits a number. Getting this axis right is what lets the leaderboard mean one thing.
This axis is also a browse surface: the by-contribution index gathers the pages by the label they declare, so the analyses, the theory, the measurements, and the dead ends kept as first-class negatives each have a shelf of their own.
Once a page is published, it carries a tier that says how firmly it has been reviewed:
Two principles carry over from how research publishing works elsewhere. The tier is stamped on the page, so a reader always knows what they are looking at. And promotion turns on rigor, not on outcome: a sound method that found nothing gets published as a negative result, while a striking result on an unsound method does not.
Every page states how firmly its central claim is established (proven, measured, or conjectured) and how re-runnable it is. For anything quantitative the gate is simple: a number publishes only when its exact configuration and seed are archived and it can be re-run from the documentation. A benchmark score with no re-runnable config does not get published. Cheaper contributions carry a lighter bar: a negative result or an explainer needs sound reasoning and clearly stated limits, not a reproduction script.
Each researcher's pages gather automatically on their contributor page, derived from the byline, never hand-listed. Adding an author is adding an entry to the registry and writing pages under their name. When a page has more than one hand, a light contributor role (who ran it, who analysed it, who validated it, who wrote it) records the split, so credit stays accurate as the lab grows.
When a piece of work is done:
That is the whole standard. It is deliberately light, because the point is to raise the floor on every page without slowing the notebook down.